Phrase to describe the mechanism of natural selection
"Survival of the fittest"[1] is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms, the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[2]
Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868.[2][3] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[4][5] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[6][7]
By his own account, Herbert Spencer described a concept similar to "survival of the fittest" in his 1852 "A Theory of Population".[8] He first used the phrase after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in his Principles of Biology of 1864[9] in which he drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin's biological, evolutionary ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."[2]
In July 1866 Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to Darwin about readers thinking that the phrase "natural selection" personified nature as "selecting", and said this misconception could be avoided "by adopting Spencer's term" Survival of the fittest. Darwin promptly replied that Wallace's letter was "as clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of 'the survival of the fittest'. This however had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb". Had he received the letter two months earlier, he would have worked the phrase into the fourth edition of the Origin which was then being printed, and he would use it in his next book on "Domestic Animals etc.".[2]
Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term 'natural selection' is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity". He defended his analogy as similar to language used in chemistry, and to astronomers depicting the "attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets", or the way in which "agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of selection". He had "often personified the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,and by laws only the ascertained sequence of events."[3]
In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had used the phrase "natural selection".[10] In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[4] Darwin implies again the synonym: "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".[5] By "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for the immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape" (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete).[6] In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[11]
In The Man Versus The State, Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to justify a plausible explanation of how his theories would not be adopted by "societies of militant type". He uses the term in the context of societies at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a general principle.[12]
"Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever".[13]
Though Spencer's conception of organic evolution is commonly interpreted as a form of Lamarckism,[a] Herbert Spencer is sometimes credited with inaugurating Social Darwinism. The phrase "survival of the fittest" has become widely used in popular literature as a catchphrase for any topic related or analogous to evolution and natural selection. It has thus been applied to principles of unrestrained competition, and it has been used extensively by both proponents and opponents of Social Darwinism.[citation needed]
Evolutionary biologists criticise the manner in which the term is used by non-scientists and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The phrase also does not help in conveying the complex nature of natural selection, so modern biologists prefer and almost exclusively use the term natural selection. The biological concept of fitness refers to both reproductive success (fecundity selection), as well as survival (viability selection), and is not prescriptive in the specific ways in which organisms can be more "fit" by having phenotypic characteristics that enhance survival and reproduction (which was the meaning that Spencer had in mind).[15]
While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.[16]
The phrase can also be interpreted to express a theory or hypothesis: that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals or species, in some sense of "fit", will survive some test. Nevertheless, when extended to individuals it is a conceptual mistake, the phrase is a reference to the transgenerational survival of the heritable attributes; particular individuals are quite irrelevant. This becomes more clear when referring to Viral quasispecies, in survival of the flattest, which makes it clear to survive makes no reference to the question of even being alive itself; rather the functional capacity of proteins to carry out work.
Interpretations of the phrase as expressing a theory are in danger of being tautological, meaning roughly "those with a propensity to survive have a propensity to survive"; to have content the theory must use a concept of fitness that is independent of that of survival.[6][17]
Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[18] In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental and biological change, the factor determining survival is often not superiority over another in competition but ability to survive dramatic changes in environmental conditions, such as after a meteor impact energetic enough to greatly change the environment globally. The main land dwelling animals to survive the K-Pg impact 66million years ago had the ability to live in tunnels, for example.[citation needed]
In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is little evidence that intrinsic, biological factors such as competition have been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors such as expansion as the driving factor on a large evolutionary scale. The rise of dominant groups such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds occurred by opportunistic expansion into empty ecological niches and the extinction of groups happened due to large shifts in the abiotic environment.[18]
It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism[citation needed]. However, these ideas pre-date and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The use of the term "social Darwinism" as a critique of capitalist ideologies was introduced in Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[19]
Russian zoologist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the fittest" as supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the best at competing individually, but often the community made up of those best at working together. He concluded that
In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood in its wide Darwinian sense not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress.[20]
Applying this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as one of the dominant factors of evolution, the other being self-assertion, and concluded that
In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.[21]
"Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology.[22] The reasoning is that if one takes the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving". Furthermore, the expression does become a tautology if one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.[22]
However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection).[22]
If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection". On the other hand, if the characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)[22]
Momme von Sydow suggested further definitions of 'survival of the fittest' that may yield a testable meaning in biology and also in other areas where Darwinian processes have been influential. However, much care would be needed to disentangle tautological from testable aspects. Moreover, an "implicit shifting between a testable and an untestable interpretation can be an illicit tactic to immunize natural selection ... while conveying the impression that one is concerned with testable hypotheses".[17][23]
Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer addresses the tautology problem in his 1997 book, Why People Believe Weird Things, in which he points out that although tautologies are sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and that scientific principles like natural selection are testable and falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power. Shermer points out, as an example, that population genetics accurately demonstrate when natural selection will and will not effect change on a population. Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same geological strata as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural selection.[24]
Read more:
Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia
- Darwinists Devolve - Discovery Institute - February 11th, 2024 [February 11th, 2024]
- Darwin's fatal competition model - Times of Malta - February 11th, 2024 [February 11th, 2024]
- Bitcoin Halving Is Poised to Unleash Darwinism on Miners - CoinDesk - December 12th, 2023 [December 12th, 2023]
- David Gelernters Farewell to Darwinism - Discovery Institute - November 20th, 2023 [November 20th, 2023]
- Darwinizing the Universe: A Theory That Explains Everything ... - BreakPoint.org - November 20th, 2023 [November 20th, 2023]
- Science Lab: Evolving Dak, McCarthy on the attack - DallasCowboys.com - November 20th, 2023 [November 20th, 2023]
- How to ensure that all students have scientific literacy - Inside Higher Ed - August 14th, 2023 [August 14th, 2023]
- The Darwinism of timepieces - Manila Bulletin - May 2nd, 2023 [May 2nd, 2023]
- ProSocial World: How the principles of evolution can create lasting ... - Science Daily - May 2nd, 2023 [May 2nd, 2023]
- New National Museum of Wildlife Art exhibition announced - Buckrail - May 2nd, 2023 [May 2nd, 2023]
- Digital Darwinism: How To Build Future-fit Foundations For Business ... - The Drum - April 22nd, 2023 [April 22nd, 2023]
- In Breath-Holding, Kate and a Croc Are Champions - Discovery Institute - April 22nd, 2023 [April 22nd, 2023]
- How the principles of evolution can create lasting global change ... - Binghamton - April 22nd, 2023 [April 22nd, 2023]
- What is essentialism? And how does it shape attitudes to transgender people and sexual diversity? - Phys.org - April 22nd, 2023 [April 22nd, 2023]
- Media CEO Says Writers Should Be Using AI to Churn Out 30-50 ... - Futurism - April 22nd, 2023 [April 22nd, 2023]
- Survival of the richest - Perspective Magazine - April 22nd, 2023 [April 22nd, 2023]
- Darwinism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics - February 7th, 2023 [February 7th, 2023]
- Darwinism Theory of Evolution (With Criticism) | Biology - January 4th, 2023 [January 4th, 2023]
- Survival of the fittest | Definition, Applications, & Examples - December 25th, 2022 [December 25th, 2022]
- Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia - December 25th, 2022 [December 25th, 2022]
- Social Darwinism | Definition & Facts | Britannica - December 21st, 2022 [December 21st, 2022]
- Epigenetics Directs Genetics And Thats a Problem for Darwinism - December 16th, 2022 [December 16th, 2022]
- Herbert Spencer | Biography, Social Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest ... - November 27th, 2022 [November 27th, 2022]
- Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism - SciHi BlogSciHi Blog - November 27th, 2022 [November 27th, 2022]
- Epigenetics: Adaptation Without Darwinism CEH - November 21st, 2022 [November 21st, 2022]
- Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis? | Evolution News - November 21st, 2022 [November 21st, 2022]
- Social Darwinism | Examples & History - Study.com - October 25th, 2022 [October 25th, 2022]
- Michael Behe: Game Over for Darwinism | Evolution News - October 23rd, 2022 [October 23rd, 2022]
- Gnter Bechlys Journey to Faith - Discovery Institute - October 13th, 2022 [October 13th, 2022]
- Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought | Evolution News - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- The Complicated Legacy of Herbert Spencer, the Man Who Coined 'Survival ... - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Darwinian Racism, Past and Present - Discovery Institute - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- God Created Wholes, Not Parts | Peter J. Leithart - First Things - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Does Ian Remind Us We're in This Together? - LA Progressive - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- A Pleasure to Serve - by Kevin D. Williamson - The Dispatch - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Opinion: Darwin, mega trends and tech drive food and beverage venture investing - FoodBev.com - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- The mad, bad and dangerous theories of Thomas Henry Huxley - The Spectator - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Emily Whitten: Start with evolution | WORLD - WORLD News Group - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- The Fading All-American Story - Word and Way - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- What did the U.S. know about the Holocaust and when did we know it? - Forward - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- What now for the British monarchy and its legacy for First Nations people? - National Indigenous Times - September 15th, 2022 [September 15th, 2022]
- Why Darwin Eclipsed Wallace: Darwin and the English Class System - Discovery Institute - August 25th, 2022 [August 25th, 2022]
- Michael Behe Debates Evolution and Catholicism - Discovery Institute - August 25th, 2022 [August 25th, 2022]
- Critical Race Theory's Merchants of Doubt | Time - TIME - August 2nd, 2022 [August 2nd, 2022]
- Survival of the briefest | Strictly Opinion | richmondregister.com - Richmond Register - August 2nd, 2022 [August 2nd, 2022]
- Critical Race Theorys Merchants of Doubt - Yahoo News - August 2nd, 2022 [August 2nd, 2022]
- Experts Share Opinions on Aliens and Humanity's Role in Space Exploration - The Future of Things - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- Gnter Bechly: Species Pairs Wreck Darwinism - Discovery Institute - July 3rd, 2022 [July 3rd, 2022]
- Donate Darwinism for a Tax Credit? Evolutionists Admit Their Field's Failures - Discovery Institute - July 3rd, 2022 [July 3rd, 2022]
- Do we need a new theory of evolution? - The Guardian - June 30th, 2022 [June 30th, 2022]
- Overruling Roe v. Wade: The International Dimension - International Policy Digest - June 30th, 2022 [June 30th, 2022]
- On Darwinism and the Abdication of Reason - Discovery Institute - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Fact-Checking Professor Dave on Darwinism | Evolution News - June 5th, 2022 [June 5th, 2022]
- Texas Conservatives: Defenders Of Capitalism And The Free Market? Not So Much - Reform Austin - May 25th, 2022 [May 25th, 2022]
- Humans Could Go Extinct. Here's How and Who's Trying to Stop It - CNET - May 25th, 2022 [May 25th, 2022]
- Darwin, Galton, and Replacement Theory - Discovery Institute - May 21st, 2022 [May 21st, 2022]
- UPES takes the lead in rebooting business education and entrepreneurship - Times of India - May 21st, 2022 [May 21st, 2022]
- The implementation of brand safety is weak in India: MMA Impact India 2022 - The Financial Express - May 21st, 2022 [May 21st, 2022]
- The Real Roots of Racism: Pseudo-Science - Discovery Institute - May 13th, 2022 [May 13th, 2022]
- How We Moved Beyond Darwin to the Miracle of Man - Discovery Institute - May 13th, 2022 [May 13th, 2022]
- Opinion | Courage Seemed to be Dead. Then Came Zelensky. - The New York Times - May 13th, 2022 [May 13th, 2022]
- As PopSci turns 150, we reflect on the highs and lows of our long history - Popular Science - May 3rd, 2022 [May 3rd, 2022]
- "RB takes Darwinism very seriously" Lando Norris doesn't think highly of Red Bull driver programme; Carlos... - The Sportsrush - April 29th, 2022 [April 29th, 2022]
- Darwinism and the So What? Question: John West's Darwin Day in America - Discovery Institute - March 27th, 2022 [March 27th, 2022]
- Andrew Carnegie - Social Darwinism & Andrew Carnegie - March 23rd, 2022 [March 23rd, 2022]
- The Rise of Theistic Darwinism - Discovery Institute - March 23rd, 2022 [March 23rd, 2022]
- The Racism of Darwin and Darwinism - Discovery Institute - February 11th, 2022 [February 11th, 2022]
- Darwin's Rhetorical Foundation of Sand: Theological Utilitarianism - Discovery Institute - February 11th, 2022 [February 11th, 2022]
- Darwin's Reticence: On the Origin of a Book - Discovery Institute - February 11th, 2022 [February 11th, 2022]
- Evolutionary Thinking: On Darwinism, Doubt and Dunedin - RNZ - February 11th, 2022 [February 11th, 2022]
- Top Scientific Problems with Evolution - Discovery Institute - February 11th, 2022 [February 11th, 2022]
- Allowing 'Darwinism to Kill Off' the 'Foolish' Unvaccinated is a 'Necessary Evil,' According to a D.C. Mayor's Office official - The Lee Daily... - February 7th, 2022 [February 7th, 2022]
- Darwin and the Newtonian Metanarrative - Discovery Institute - January 30th, 2022 [January 30th, 2022]
- Social Darwinism - Communication Theory - December 29th, 2021 [December 29th, 2021]
- The Dead Talk Back to Darwin - Discovery Institute - December 15th, 2021 [December 15th, 2021]
- Materialist Science as Paternalistic Propaganda - Discovery Institute - December 15th, 2021 [December 15th, 2021]
- Why Darwinism Is False | Discovery Institute - December 3rd, 2021 [December 3rd, 2021]
- Herbert Spencer: Theory & Social Darwinism - Video ... - December 3rd, 2021 [December 3rd, 2021]
- Social Welfare History Project Social Darwinism and the Poor - November 28th, 2021 [November 28th, 2021]
- Three Stunners Challenge Traditional Darwinism | Evolution ... - November 28th, 2021 [November 28th, 2021]